On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Vishal Agarwal wrote:
> Therefore, the Ashokan Empire was larger than that of Aurangzeb.
Firstly, Ashoka was a Nastik Buddhist. Whether Nastik Aurangzeb, Nastik
Ashoka or Nastik Clive things hardly matter from the Astik point of view.
Secondly, this statement is wrong, but I shall not belabour the point.
Interested readers may consult the numerous court chronicles to read for
themselves how Aurangzeb conquered Assam, Tibet, Afghanistan and Tamil
Nadu. Parts of Aurangzeb's empire were over-run with bandits, but these
were temporary phases.
> "To most Hindus, Akbar is one of the greatest of Muslim Emperors of
> India and Aurangzeb one of the worst; to many Muslims, the opposite is
> the case."
>âFrom the unbiased view of territorial extent, Aurangzeb's empire was
larger than Akbar's - even you have stated that the Deccan was included in
Aurangzeb's kingdom, but this was outside Akbar's power. From this fact
alone, Aurangzeb was greater than Akbar. Aurangzeb took a strong stand
against disruptive separatist elements, which was naturally disliked by
those fomenting the rebellions in the first place.
> VA: Please keep your Islamic advice and Wisdom to yourself. Or you may write
> directly to the Sangh. I and other secular Indians are quite happy with the
> current Linguistic scenario in India.
Of course, Baniya Vaishyas are not happy at the prospect of Brahmanic
Sanskrit replacing their beloved Khari Boli. Fortunately, there are many
Brahmins who will agree that Sanskrit needs some piece of the cake going
to Khari Boli. Seems you are the only one on this list to disagree with
me.
P.S. I shall not post any more on this thread due to lack of time.
Samar